McClellan v. Cunningham
Tennessee Supreme Court
The plaintiff in error, in September, 1839, executed an instrument not under, seal, in which he agreed ■ to receive of the defendant in error five hundred dollars’ worth of morus multicaulis roots and cuttings, to he delivered at the house of the defendant in error, in Jonesborough, at the market price, on the 15th of March, 1840. Much testimony was taken on both sides as to whether the article was of any value on the 15th of March, 1840, and whether there was, at that time,…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in error, in September, 1839, executed an instrument not under, seal, in which he agreed ■ to receive of the defendant in error five hundred dollars’ worth of morus multicaulis roots and cuttings, to he delivered at the house of the defendant in error, in Jonesborough, at the market price, on the 15th of March, 1840. Much testimony was taken on both sides as to whether the article was of any value on the 15th of March, 1840, and whether there was, at that time, any market price for it in the town of Jonesborough. The defendant in error proved on the trial that the article had…
1Opinion of the CourtReese, J.
The promise contained in the paper signed by McClellan was not nudum pactum, but the word “deliverable” in that paper, and the letter of McClellan, from Washington city, were sufficient to authorise the jury to infer an agreement on the part of Cunningham to deliver. the morus multicaulis roots and cuttings.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by18 opinions
- Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Maupin v. ChaneyTexas Supreme Court · 1942
- Rogers v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- McCormick v. JesterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
- People v. Block, New York County Courts1972
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.